Deadly Pistols

[Dadekster88]

Cant believe you guys are even arguing about all of this. You can have all the training in the world and miss in combat, all of the time. You can also be the worst range shooter and hit more targets in combat than all of the best guys. The very next day it may reverse. No science or statistics ever gonna be able to change that.

When I started my military career, we had a SGT on a range tell us something like, "When you guys get in combat you all are gonna suck, Im just here to make sure you dont blow off anyone's head here." Truer words were never spoken.

I can't argue with that logic as I'm not a member of the Mr. Murphy fan club since I seem to get screwed more often than not. That said who do you want in your foxhole? They guy who was shown how a grenade works or the one who isn't sure what to pull and what to throw?

[sburke]

FWIW, I usually move my own crews back to a safe map edge somewhere as soon as practical, and generally keep them out of the way, which makes them even less of a problem for my opponent.

Just for clarification here are we talking about the AI or human opponents? If human, then yeah cut out the gamey shhhhhtuff and send your crews to the rear. If the AI, well we know it is a gamey knnnniggit and yeah just reducing the accuracy of the crews should take care of this. (and maybe have prevented my Churchill crew from turning your AT team into swiss cheese early in our previous PBEM as they bailed out of their tank. they did go to the rear after that).

I did notice with a particular CMFI scenario the AI tank crews continuing to attack into the teeth of my defenses after their rides err broke down. That is an additional item I would like some day go away. At worst they should go to ground near the vehicle. At best retreat if possible to their appropriate zone.

[Dadekster88]

I wasn't being dismissive. The problem is that pistols are too effective. Not the crews. The pistols. Farting about with the crews is fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

No, that's a complex solution again - adjusting ammo level based on current habitat. It's also fixing the non-problem.

FWIW, I don't think this a major problem. Usually any crews that escape from a destroyed tank are pretty useless, at least for the first couple of minutes. Yes: occasionally, there are exceptions. I didn't say there was *no* problem, remember? In most cases, pistol armed crews can be gunned down with little problem. If you regularly find your defences breached by unhorsed crews, well, you have bigger problems than just the crews.

As an aside; I usually move my own crews back to a safe map edge somewhere as soon as practical, and generally keep them out of the way, which makes them even less of a problem for my opponent.

I agree, this is by no means some earth stopping game breaking bug. It would be nice to see if it could be looked into or maybe tweaked. I think that is what most people are asking for from what I have read. I would think the issue is something that could be looked at from both the weapon system and crew side perhaps? Either tone down the effects of the pistol and/or make experience with the weapon more telling? I honestly don't know tbh what could fix the uncanny kill rate of the pistols in the game though. Someone would probably have to run test similar to how they found the bug concerning how a wall behind a unit was bad...sorry I can't remember the details but it got BF's attention since they love the empirical evidence stuff.

[JonS]

I did notice with a particular CMFI scenario the AI tank crews continuing to attack into the teeth of my defenses after their rides err broke down. That is an additional item I would like some day go away. At worst they should go to ground near the vehicle. At best retreat if possible to their appropriate zone.

That's of a piece with the ammo and the experience.

As far as the game is concerned the crew is the tank, and the tank is the crew. If you make one veteran, they're both veteran. Make one low ammo, they're both low ammo. Give one of them AI orders to advance, they both have AI orders to advance. Take one of them away - by knocking out the tank - and the crew will just carry on with the experience, and the ammo, and the AI orders it had before.

It's not ideal, it's known to be not ideal, but it's not an easy thing to untangle them. And, usually, it isn't all that much of an issue.

Imagine if crews had grenades and AT weapons! :eek:

[LongLeftFlank]

Thanks for the explanation, Jon; earlier jibe withdrawn. In that case, I suppose I'd sooner see all unit pistols with "Full" ammo loads in single digits than continue with these frequent rampages, at least until this can be fixed properly. Personnel whose primary weapon is a sidearm are typically so equipped because they have more critical duties than shooting. This would restrict it to its proper intended purpose; emergency self-defence. It's just silly to have it so frequently employed as a lethal offensive weapon.

Game breaker? No. Fixable without massive brainjar damage: probably.

[Childress]

As far as the game is concerned the crew is the tank, and the tank is the crew. If you make one veteran, they're both veteran. Make one low ammo, they're both low ammo. Give one of them AI orders to advance, they both have AI orders to advance. Take one of them away - by knocking out the tank - and the crew will just carry on with the experience, and the ammo, and the AI orders it had before.

Thus the problem only arises in Human vs AI battles where the human is on defense, if I understand correctly. If so, no wonder some of us have never witnessed the phenomenon.

[Baneman]

Thus the problem only arises in Human vs AI battles where the human is on defense, if I understand correctly. If so, no wonder some of us have never witnessed the phenomenon.

You realise you've just told your gamier opponents to charge you with crews...

[sburke]

Thus the problem only arises in Human vs AI battles where the human is on defense, if I understand correctly. If so, no wonder some of us have never witnessed the phenomenon.

Only the aspect of them continuing to advance. Even in HTH play, being in close proximity to a tank crew bailing can be bad news. Most of my AT assests fire from a good bit further than that so I haven't had to really deal with it, but some of my opponents (JonS) who are better at close assault tactics have had to deal with my crews bailing. Of 3 cases I think only one really ended up with the attacker dead, but I think in the others I may have caused a casualty or two.

[JonS]

... but some of my opponents (JonS) who are better at close assault tactics have had to deal with my crews bailing. Of 3 cases I think only one really ended up with the attacker dead, but I think in the others I may have caused a casualty or two.

In retrospect, that doesn't upset me much. Their ride was KO'd by close assault, not AP penetrations. Given that I'd expect those exiting crews to be a bit more composed, AND ready for a fight when they do get out.

[Paper Tiger]

Thus the problem only arises in Human vs AI battles where the human is on defense, if I understand correctly. If so, no wonder some of us have never witnessed the phenomenon.

Yup, so if you don't play the game single play against an AI opponent or you only play AI defend missions, it's not an issue and so doesn't need to be fixed. On the other hand, if you DO play single play and you want to have the AI attack from time to time, it IS an issue.

After bailing, and depending on the crews' morale/experience, the crew will continue to follow their AI attack plan. To prevent the AI crews from bailing their rides too quickly if they are Regular/Normal or lesser mortals, I often give my AI crews High morale. Once abandoned, the AI will NEVER re-occupy the tank so it's as good as dead for the rest of the mission. So they will recover quite quickly and start advancing. If the crew are Veteran or Crack troops, then they are absolutely deadly pistol troops.

The solution to the AI advancing crews is simple. When they abandon their tanks, the tank crews go into a nul AI group. This feature is already in the game to prevent AT guns from following their AI group plans. I had one hilarious screenshot from a CMBN QB of AT guns on the attack which prompted their removal from their AI groups.

The accuracy of pistols in the game is a different matter. I'll leave that one for you guys to determine.

[womble]

Thus the problem only arises in Human vs AI battles where the human is on defense, if I understand correctly. If so, no wonder some of us have never witnessed the phenomenon.

Not quite. Apart from the "reaction to close assault" which also applies when the vehicle has been catastrophically destroyed by ATR ambush at close range, there's the problem of (even Broken morale-state) crews either trying to exfil from the chaotic aftermath of a failed attack and stumbling upon defenders when they take roundabout routes home or just staying in place and taking overly-effective potshots at advancing troops, only to run away across open ground in Panic state the moment fire is returned and be cut down.

There is also what seems to me to be a case of even human controlled crews following their tank's movement orders as were in place when they bailed, if they haven't been sufficiently shocked for "self-preservation" to kick in. I struggle to believe that even Veteran +1 motivation troops would continue running across 80m of open meadow towards some bocage where there are known defenders after having their ride shot out from under them by a Tiger further back.

[Dadekster88]

Well I think we can all agree that there are about a million variables that can occur when a crew bails out of their close assaulted AFV but the one that ends with the crew killing several of the enemy within a minute of bailing out are gonna be a bit rarer then the one that ends up with them being machine gunned down as they slowly exit the AFV.

[womble]

Another one to add to the litany of woe. Might even be a record: 112m at a moving target changing both range and bearing while under fire. Shortly before they cowered. Wind speed was low, but even the Olympics only shoot pistol competition out to 50m.

Can't really rerun the turn, since it's a PBEM.

[dieseltaylor]

Make sure you now the relevant turn number and at game end get your opponents preceding turn and password [or keep it - I always keep all turns] and then run all the tests you like.

If it would be more useful now you have the option of a film of the event for YouTube and/or a trusted third party is sent the relevant files and passwords.

I certainly re-ran a horribly unlikely experience in V1.00 CMBN PBEM to see if a problem had been sorted or not. The vapourising tank crew syndrome where they are unfazed and unhindered in firing by corpses in the turret basket.

[Guest]

Another one to add to the litany of woe. Might even be a record: 112m at a moving target changing both range and bearing while under fire. Shortly before they cowered. Wind speed was low, but even the Olympics only shoot pistol competition out to 50m.

Can't really rerun the turn, since it's a PBEM.

Can you send the turn to me, please? If possible also point out the unit doing the shooting. My email is my first name (as above) at battlefront.com. Thanks.

[womble]

Can you send the turn to me, please? If possible also point out the unit doing the shooting. My email is my first name (as above) at battlefront.com. Thanks.

I'll dig it out and send it to you pronto.

Edit: And while digging it out and getting precise about times, I find that it probably wasn't the pistol shot after all, but getting drilled with an MP40 burst. Said burst originating over 160m away, almost certainly aimed at a unit much closer (probably 120m or so). The shot was late, but probably not high, AFAICT. Still, a shot isn't going to drop 2m in the 10th of a second it takes to travel the additional 40m (380m/s mv) and the guy ended up only wounded, so even a shot that was late but went through the ghost of centre mass could make a leg shot on the unlucky dogface behind. Nothing to see here except reasons not to be in a firefight. Even at the back. I doubt you need to look at the file, Phil, so I won't send it unless you say you still need it.

[John Kettler]

I have an example to cite of lethal pistol use in combat. Range "about 100 meters." Alexander Pyl'cyn, then a PL of a Penal Company, was hunting down survivors of a German column ambushed by his men as part of the Rogachev-Globin Offensive, late February 1944. Having failed to hit, with his PPSh, a wily German moving from tree to tree, he drew his Nagant, took careful aim, then fired, dropping the German with one shot. The incident is reported by him on page 23 of his book Penalty Strike. The weapon was a Nagant M1985, chambered for 7.62 x 38R ammunition. As shown in the Wiki ammo pic, this is a hot load relative to its bore, rather like the difference between .45 ACP and the .45 Long Colt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895

This man had done extensive pre war training with Osoviakhim (military training for high school students), was a trained officer and had already served with a line scout unit which hadn't been in combat. When he took the shot, he wasn't himself under fire. Thus, while adrenaline was certainly running, the firing conditions were closer to the range than to the trying to shoot the charging foe. Even so, I found the account so remarkable I memorized the page number.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

I think c3k pretty much nailed it back on page 6.

Take everything you think you know about effective weapon ranges, and drop them a whole weapon scale and you will get to practical range. Meaning pistols are 10-15 yard weapons at best, SMGs are 25 to 50 yard weapons, carbines actually hit things at 50 to 100 yards, full rifles might go twice that on a good day, and belt fed MGs will keep the enemy pinned down at 400 yards. Those practical ranges still do not remotely mean hitting every time with 1-2 shots, they mean hits are common enough that using the typically available firing time, ammo loads, and manpower numbers, that class of weapon will be combat effective at that range window.

The biggest use I've actually seen of the pistols that are the formal thread subject, in actual combat, is in night fighting, and at point blank range. Muzzle physically pressed to the target, at times. Inside the same foxhole, bunker, or small room, in pitch darkness. That is when and where you actually want a 45 sidearm...

[Buzz]

Adding another perspective.

Don't remember the exact year (maybe 15 years ago?) but the FBI statistics for "gunfights" were 95% of all gunfights take place in 0-21 feet. Average man cannot draw a gun from concealment in under 2 seconds. The average man can cover 21 feet of ground in 1.5 seconds. The average gunfight takes place in low light conditions and is over in 3-5 seconds with 3 to 4 shots are usually fired.

I would suggest any pistol gunfight is a very close and "stressful" morale situation and should be reflected as such for gaming.